Sony announces Cyber-shot RX100 VI with 24-200mm zoom

Sony has announced the Cyber-shot RX100 VI, a 1"-type compact camera with a 20.1-megapixel Exmor RS stacked CMOS sensor, 24-200mm equivalent F2.8-4.5 zoom lens, 315 phase detection points covering approximately 65% of the sensor, and the ability to shoot at 24 fps with autofocus.

The RX100 VI becomes the first in the Cyber-shot RX100-series to gain a touchscreen, allowing both touch shutter and touch focus. The screen can tilt up to 180 degree upwards and 90 degree downwards, extending shooting flexibility. The new camera is essentially the same size as its predecessor the RX100 V, but its depth has been increased slightly, by 1.8mm.

The RX100 VI includes the latest Bionz X processor with front-end LSI, as used in the most recent Alpha cameras

Sony says that the RX100 VI contains processing and experience developed in the creation of the a9 sports camera. It includes the latest Bionz X processor with front-end LSI, as used in the most recent Alpha cameras. This helps give what the company says is the world's fastest AF (measured at 0.03 seconds) and with twice the EyeAF tracking performance of the Mark V.

The RX100 VI's Hybrid AF system includes 315 phase detection points, covering approximately 65% of the sensor for 'high-density tracking'.

The RX100 VI's 24-200mm lens comprises 15 elements in 12 groups, featuring two ED (extra-low dispersion) aspherical glass elements and eight aspherical lens elements including four AA (advanced aspherical) lenses. Sony describes the pocketable camera as having "two lenses worth of interchangeable lens", incorporating the range of a 24-70mm lens and a 70-200mm in one "do anything" camera. Meanwhile, it offers a claimed 4EV of image stabilization. Unlike its predecessor, there is no ND filter for video shooters.

The RX100 VI's XGA OLED pop-up EVF is similar to previous models in the series, but once popped-up, the finder optics no longer need to be manually extended for use.

Sample Gallery:

On the video front, the RX100 VI is capable of full-width, oversampled 4K video with support for 8-bit HLG (Hybrid Log Gamma) for easy HDR capture. The RX100 VI is also able to record superslow motion video at either 250, 500 or 1000 fps.

The new Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI will ship next month, priced at $1200 (£1,150 in the UK).

At the same press conference, Sony also announced the VCT-SGR1 shooting grip, designed for the RX0 and RX100-series cameras. The VCT-SGR1 includes camera controls, an adjustable head and built-in tripod. It will be available in September for around $100.

High Resolution 4K Movie Shooting with full pixel readout and no pixel binning plus 4K HDR for instant HDR workflow

NEW YORK, Jun.5, 2018 – Sony – a worldwide leader in digital imaging and the world’s largest image sensor manufacturer – has today announced another exciting model for their popular Cyber-shot RX100 series of compact cameras, the RX100 VI (model DSC-RX100M6).

The innovative new RX100 VI camera is the first of all the RX100 models to include a high magnification zoom lens, as it packs in an impressive ZEISS® Vario-Sonnar T* 24-200mm F2.8 – F4.5 lens yet doesn’t sacrifice the pocket-size portability, fast responsiveness and high image quality that has become the hallmark of Sony’s RX100 lineup. It’s extensive zoom, impressive image quality and versatility for both still images and video make it an ideal choice for capturing daily life, cityscapes, portraiture, sports, wildlife and everything in between.

The new model is equipped with a 20.1 MP 1.0-type stacked Exmor RS™ CMOS image sensor with DRAM chip and an upgraded BIONZ X™ image processing system with a front-end LSI that maximizes processing speed and optimizes image quality in all shooting environments. Additionally, the RX100 VI features an incredibly efficient Fast Hybrid AF system with 315-point phase-detection AF points on the sensor that can acquire focus in as little as 0.03 seconds, the world’s fastest AF acquisition time for 1.0-type sensor cameras. It can also shoot at up to 24 fps at full resolution with continuous AF/AE tracking and produces beautiful 4K video with full pixel readout and no pixel binning.

“We’re continuing to innovate our RX camera lineup, providing our customers new and different ways to capture what they’ve never been able to capture before,” said Neal Manowitz, Vice President of Digital Imaging for Sony Electronics. “The new RX100 VI is the latest example, delivering extensive reach, extremely advanced autofocus, high-speed shooting and more, while still being able to slip easily into your pocket. It’s the ultimate pocket travel camera.”

A first for Sony’s RX100 series of cameras, the new ZEISS® Vario-Sonnar T* 24-200mm F2.8 – F4.5 lens packs the power of both 24-70mm and 70-200mm focal lengths into a singular compact design. This is achieved thanks to its unique design featuring two ED (extra-low dispersion) aspherical glass elements and eight aspherical lens elements including four AA (advanced aspherical) lenses. All pieces work together seamlessly to deliver outstanding sharpness from corner-to-corner at all focal lengths, maintaining the acclaimed image quality of the RX100 series.

The impressive new lens on the RX100 VI maintains a large aperture throughout the entire zoom range, ensuring portraits can be created with beautiful background defocus, fast moving subjects can be captured with crisp focus and no blurring, and much more. Additionally, the lens has built-in Optical SteadyShotTM image stabilization that is equivalent to a 4.0-stopvifaster shutter speed, helping to prevent camera shake or blurry imageseven in a low-light condition or at telephoto zoom range.

Lightning-Fast AF Performance and Shooting Speeds

The new RX100 VI model features a Fast Hybrid AF system that ultimately allows the camera to lock focus in as little as 0.03 seconds. This innovative AF system combines the respective advantages of 315-point focal-plane phase-detection AF points that cover approximately 65% of the sensor and contrast-detection AF. This high speed focusing complements the versatile 24-200mm range of the lens, ensuring all subjects can be captured with precise detail and clarity.

Additionally, a first for the RX100 series of cameras, the RX100 VI includes Sony’s advanced High-density Tracking AF technology, which concentrates AF points around a subject to improve tracking and focus accuracy. The popular Eye AF technology is also available with approximately 2x the tracking performance of the current RX100 series model[ix]. Further, the camera has LCD touch focusing and touchpad focus point control for users that would like to drag their fingers to ideal focus points of their choice.

An ideal complement to the AF system, the RX100 VI offers continuous high-speed shooting at up to 24 fps with full AF/AE tracking, with an impressive buffer limit of up to 233 images. The display lag of the EVF has been substantially reduced compared to prior models, allowing shooters to capture the decisive moment with ultimate confidence. Also, for convenience during image playback, continuously shot images can be displayed in groups instead of individual shots.

The RX100 VI also has a high speed Anti-Distortion Shutter (maximum shutter speed of up to 1/32000 second) that reduces the “rolling shutter” effect commonly experienced with fast moving subjects, and can shoot completely silently in all modes, including continuous high speed shooting, when electronic shutter is engaged. A mechanical shutter mode is also available as well if required by the user.

Advanced Movie Capabilities Including 4K HDR

The pocket-friendly RX100 VI is packed with a variety of video capabilities that will satisfy even the most demanding video enthusiasts.

With Fast Hybrid AF, the focal-plane phase-detection AF points ensures accurate focusing and tracking performance, even for the severe focusing requirements of 4K movie shooting. AF drive speed and AF tracking sensitivity can also be adjusted via the menu system, giving shooters plenty of flexibility based on their focusing preferences.

In 4K mode, the new RX100 VI utilizes full pixel readout without pixel binning to ensure that all the finer details of 4K video are captured with minimal moire and ‘jaggies’.

For the first time in a Cyber-shot camera, the RX100 VI features 4K HDR compatibility thanks to its new HLG (Hybrid Log-Gamma) picture profile that offers an instant HDR workflow solution. Additional professional caliber video features include S-Log3/S-Gamut3, 120p Full HD mode, Picture Profile, proxy recording and more. The RX100 VI is also able to record super slow motion video at either 240fps, 480 fps or 960 fps.

Premium Design, Control and Convenience

The new RX100 VI is equipped with a high-contrast 2.35 million dot XGA OLED Tru-Finder™ with ZEISS®T* Coating, ensuring true-to-life image preview and playback functionality. The EVFitselfretracts in and out of the camera body based on user preference, and can be activated instantly by asingle One-push Access button.

A first for Sony’s RX series, RX100 VI has a touch shutter that can be activated by tapping the back LCD screen, a zoom lever with customizable zoom speeds and an LCD that can be rotated 180 degrees upward or 90 degrees downward for a variety of shooting angles for the creator. There is also aMonitor Auto OFF function that boosts max number of still images by up to 30%, and the camera is also Wi-Fi®, NFC™ and Bluetooth® compatible.

Pricing and Availability

The new Sony Cyber-shot RX100 VI compact camera will ship next month for about $1,200 US and $1,600 CA.

Comments

I politely request from SONY an RX100 VI-b version that retains the brighter 24-70 lens from previous cameras.

I'd really like the newest sensor from the RX100 VI, but I don't want to loose so much light to the lens change... The low light images from the picture gallery are not good. My night shots in Leiria, Portugal with the RX100 IV were SOOO much cleaner - I didn't need to employ noise reduction in Capture One at all.

I like the general look of this camera. It should certainly have a mike input, that's a bad omission. The lens range is adequate, although the performance remains to be seen. However, the price is too high and you are primarily paying for the compact size when compared to an SLR. Having seen a few worrying mechanical problems with Sony compact cameras (particularly the basic RX100) that are expensive to have fixed, I'd really need to be sure this camera was reliable, as anything I buy as a backup will still need to work reliably for thousands of frames.

Medium to high end users can now chose from pocketable (RX100x) to Full Frame (A7x), at a high price but with highest performance on the market, and varied focal lenses, complemented with RX10III and RX10IV and their 24-600 mm.

Sony really has produced a full and coherent line-up in only a few years. Rather impressive.

I like the RX10III (and IV) lens, but if Sony wants to change it as well, I have some suggestions. And I'm glad that size isn't a priority in the case of RX10 series, since they've shown much more value in versatility than in "compactness".I'd like to see any of these options:I-Faster: 9.4-148mm f/2.0-2.8 (equiv. to a 25-400mm f/5.4-7.5)II-Wider: 6.7-92mm f/2.8 (equiv. to a 18-250mm f/7.5)III-Longer: 11.8-370mm f/2.8-5.6 (equiv. to 28-1000mm f/7.5-15.1)These would probably have a 77mm filter thread and increase the size/weight/price around 15-20%, but I wouldn't care.

ALL good suggestions, however, Sony's unmoveable resistance to using articulated screen has kept me from purchasing ANY of the Sony offerings that otherwise would fit my needs. I would have LONG AGO spent more $$$ with that brand, than I should.

Does anyone remember the Sony Cyber-shot DSC-R1? It was a Sony with a full articulated screen at the top of the camera that lay flat. It worked great and I sorely miss it being implemented on current Sony cameras. It lacked touch screen but as far as full articulation couldn't be beat back then. Still have mine but never use it. Only 10 MP and slow by today's standards.https://www.dpreview.com/articles/5440751166/throwback-thursday-sony-cyber-shot-dsc-r1

I found it informative last night to use DPR’s side by side comparison of this Sony with my recently purchased Panasonic ZS200. They are close to the same size. The ZS200 is an improvement to the ZS100 and I like it.

Beyond 50mm (equivalent) the RX100 VI's lens is significantly brighter than both the Panasonic Lumix DC-ZS200 and the older ZS100. The maximum F12 equivalent aperture on the long end should mean less diffraction-induced softening than the F16 equivalent offered by the Panasonics.

People complaining so much about the price want something for nothing. As you go smaller, the challenges in making a decent lens, full PDAF, super fast buffer an action costs money - as simple as that. There is no other camera except this one doing what this is doing - *at this pocketable size*- as simple as that.

It was also a built in EVF that pops up!

This does cost money beyond the "SONY" logo. To those that think this could have been $800, maybe with a real bad lens made of plastic. Is that what you really want?

What I personally don't get: In 6 years time, this is the 6th iteration of the RX100. In those 6 years, the price of the RX100 has doubled. Doubled. Given the technological advancements you've seen in camera tech, the RX100 advancements appear evolutionary, not very revolutionary. It's basically the same camera as 6 years ago, just with updated technology. And not even the very latest tech anymore, no 4k/60fp, no gps, touchscreen took very long, no stills from video etc. So I'm still searching for reasons that justify doubling the price.

I don't think commenting on the price directly equate to expecting something for nothing? Given this is primarily a photo gear forum, most users are more than familiair with the unfortunate high prices that comes with new/state of the art technology.However, reading the comments on this camera, I do find it strikingly obvious that so few people comment that the price is more then acceptable while the majority clearly reject this price. For a new camera release, the opinion on the price match/expectation appear very unbalanced...

"Technology can have a price. Deal with it". Damn, that's an easy one to justify just about every price. Talking about stating silly things…

Instead of the easy one-liners, maybe you could come up with actual arguments. I've paid a hefty premium for 3 of the RX100 models all in pre-orders and without a second-thought, because, in comparison to competitors and with the current tech state at the time, the prices could be justified (but that's personal of course). After that Sony noticed that competitors kept sleeping and slapped on a 30% price increase. On the other hand, why not. I really hope this triggers other brands to come up with a solid alternative.

“Its basically the same camera in six years” shows a complete lack of understanding the sifferences. That embedded atacked ram on the sensor tgat allows it to burst? A long telephoto lens that is reasonably fast and from the Gallery sanples so far seems surprisingly good.

You say we are all familiar with gear proces- you know that good oenses cost a lot of money, right?

Ditto for a unique popabble high resolution EVF. Ditto for making all of this small, compact and work.

I guess I've been a bit harsh, but try putting that sentence in context of my entire posts, not just focussing on one sentence (although it's good bait:)).I meant that if you look at most other tech gear and/or camera, all that stuff get's better specs and features added during it's lifecycle. For instance the Nikon D1 was introduced at dollar 5000,-, and 16 years later the 5th iteration was announced at dollar 6500,-. That 5th model also has much better specs and features but a price increase of about 30% in 16 years.Also basically the same camera. And with that I mean a camera aimed at the same audience, the same body, and with updated specs on top of the previous model, but nothing that suddenly makes it a new breed of camera. Maybe that helps making it a bit less black and white.

Tech-wise I (but that's me personally) don't see what's so special about the RX100 that validates a 100% price increase in 6 years.I'll wait for the VII, hope sony goes low light again on that one.

To be quite honest, the 1st iteration of this camera, which I bought right after release, was hands down the best pocketable I'd used to that point since about 1999 (Nikon coolpix days). Complain about the Sony menu, but the stills this camera produces (1st version) are STILL pleasing to the eye. It was a homerun at the time, and expensive compared to peers. But, it was worth it. We shoot with the 4th iteration now.

I don't think I need the 6th iteration, but if it was my first foray into a fantastic pocketable with a 1" sensor, and it was going to get good use, hands down I'd buy this iteration. Price be damned, the memories you'll make on this machine will equate to fractions of a penny in hard cost.

The problem is the aperture, f2.8 allows you to shoot twice as fast as f4 with the same ISO and the same exposure. That means that a hand shot on a cloudy day that at f2.8 you could do (with a good pulse) at 1/40, you would have to do it at 1/20 (than from 150mm or with a good pulse ...). It also means that if you are photographing a subject in motion and f2.8 offers you the possibility of doing it in 1/200 with f4 it should be 1/100 and it will be short, or increase the ISO. Increase ISO with these sensors is not a great idea, I have or have had rx100, rx100III, FZ1000 and Rx-10. That's why I changed my FZ1000 for RX-10 Mk1 and I did not even consider RX-10III (which also went into budget) and so it ran Rx100V ahead of Rx100VI. Here are not worth the whole life, a 24-200 f2.8-4.5 is not a quick lens, it is a very slow lens considering the size of the sensor and what you can stretch the ISO without losing too much IQ

So happy until I saw the price... I've owned a few of the rx100's but always went back to the panasonics .. Even though the sony's usually have better specs, I like the panasonics ergonomics and lower price...

$1200 ... gulp. While it's a nice piece of tech, from a psychological standpoint, I just can't imagine paying $1200 for a point and shoot, even with a 1" sensor. We really need more competition in this segment.

On top of that, it's not even a 1" sensor; just marketing BS. TheY call these "1-inch type" sensors. Sure, they're better than tiny cell-phone sensors, but they are a far cry from regular DSLRs. And, yeah, $1200 is crazy for this kind of camera.

It is 1" sensor. That's the standard terminology used for sensor size for past 30 years consistently. Ken Rockwell himself used the same terminology when he used to call Canon S series 1/1.6" sensor. 4/3 (as is micro 4/3 used the same terminology -- yes that 4/3 refers to sensor size too). Ken Rockwell calls it 4/3 too. Same applies to every (millions) of p&s 1/2.3" cameras for 30 years. Same applies to Fuji 2/3" p&s cameras a few years ago. The same terminology is used by every cell phone company Apple, Samsung and every website to describe cellphone sensor size. Why should 1" be an exception to the rest of world? Ken Rockwell is a moron.

Just hold back and try not to be an early-adopter :). I bought my mark iii used in great condition for 370€. As long as you are not in a desperate need, just wait a bit.Although I share your thoughts about the initial price...

@Butoa, if you read closely, they call it a 1-inch TYPE sensor. The actual sensor size is not nearly one inch. It's a sales pitch to make it sound bigger. I don't agree with Rockwell on everything, but I think he's right in this case.

From Wiki:"The common 1" circular video camera tubes had a rectangular photo sensitive area about 16 mm diagonal, so a digital sensor with a 16 mm diagonal size was a 1" video tube equivalent. The name of a 1" digital sensor should more accurately be read as "one inch video camera tube equivalent" sensor. Current digital image sensor size descriptors are the video camera tube equivalency size, not the actual size of the sensor. For example, a 1" sensor has a diagonal measurement of 16 mm"

This is misleading by the manufacturers. A 35mm sensor (full frame) is about 35mm across. If this "one inch" sensor was really one inch, it'd be 25.4 mm, not 16.

Dude, I already told you. It is and should be called 1" inch sensor as that is standard terminology used for all sensors for past 30 years. Go back and read my post again. Ken Rockwell himself used the same terminology when he used to call Canon S series 1/1.6" sensor (which isn't really 1/1.6" in size). Why do you can m4/3 m4/3 when it is not really 4/3 is size? This is standard measurement used by all sensors for past 30 years. Remember Fuji 2/3" sensor? Were they really 2/3" in actual size? Does sensor in your cellphone really 1/3" in size? Why are they called 1/3" when they aren't really 1/3?"

It is indeed 1" sensor for the same reason sensor your cellphone is 1/3".

It would idiotic to not call it 1" as you would be deviating from standard terminology. I mean how would you know 1" is a bigger sensor than 1/3" sensor in your cell phone if they both are using a different definition to describe sensor size?

xPoenix and Ken Rockwell are correct, but some amateurs like to participate in wishful thinking. Professional photographers and some amateurs care about sensor size, because they are interested in best IQ. If you actually read his site than you know that he is a pro who has made money with all kinds of equipment. He says, if you do not need the size, buy a Nikon D3400 for 1/3 the price and get better photo quality. Well said.

Let me repeat: How would know 1/3.2" sensor in iPhone 5 is smaller than 1/3" sensor in iPhone 6 if they are using incompatible definition to describe sensor size? Al sensor sizes are expressed in inches (video tube)

This doesn't just apply to 1". This applies to all p&s sensors for past 30 years, including cellphone. sensors for example.

Why just whine about 1"? All sensors use the same notations to describe the sensor size.

As long as I know the difference among 1/3", 1", 4/3, APS-C and FF sensor, that is more than enough for me to pick and choose the right camera to fit my need. It doesn't need a scientist to take good picture.

MyReality, they are correct in what way? Yes, 1" sensor isn't really 1" just as a sensor in iPhone isn't really 1/3" and sensor in Nokia 808 isn't really 1/1.2". So? All of them use the same standard terminology to describe sensor size.

@Butoa - I am all for using the same standard, but that is not what I am talking about. I was replying to the OP(armanius) above who said 1" sensor and Sony who says "... 1" Type Sensor" , which are not the same think. 1" is an actual measurement, 1" Type is not. Sony wants amateurs to think that 1" Type is actually 1", pros know better.If you look at an overlay of actual sensor sizes from 1/2.3 to 6x7, you cam get a better comparison of scale and size.

MyReality, I don't know what you are talking about. I perfectly understand what 1" means. It's bigger sensor than 1/2.3" sensor that used to be standard sensor size in most p&s cameras before RX100. RX100 changed that and now 1" is standard sensor size (bigger than 1/2.3" and bigger than 1/1.7" sensor in old enthusiast p&s cameras before RX100).

There is nothing confusing about it, and this is standard way sensor sizes were described for 30 years. Ken Rockwell started whining about 1" terminology and tons of people like you started quoting that article as if using 1" description is somehow "cheating"

and note that the moron says the sensor in that camera is 1/1.7." What? Apparently, he never bothered to check actual dimension (it isn't really 1/1.7".) but was perfectly fine with calling it 1/1.7." He only started whining about 1" after RX100, not realizing that he himself has used the same terminology/standard for all reviews before RX100 for last 30 years.

@Butoa - 1" sensor description is cheating if a company tries to pass it off as actual 1" to sell cameras. This is what Sony is trying to do. This is what the OP and I am talking about above. not sensor size terminology. You changed the subject to sensor size terminology. I am aware of the terminology. There is nothing wrong with the terminology. It is when a company uses it to fool people into thinking otherwise, that makes it bad.It's mostly armchair photographers who think Ken Rockwell is an idiot.

It is actually 1" sensor just like the sensor in S100 is 1/1.7"? What on earth Sony (or Nikon) say anything that is different than how sensor have been called for past 30 years? 1" perfectly describes it as bigger than Canon's S100 1/1.7" sensor but smaller than 4/3 sensor in micro 4/3.

Can you post the exact quote from Sony press release that is different than how sensors have always been named for 30 years?

What should it be it called if not 1"?

The idiocy here is amazing, and you are like 50th person who has posted this same thing in past 5 years, thanks to Ken Rockwell idiotic article.

That may be the convention for SOME sensors, but not all. For example, a 35mm sensor is actually about 35mm across. The naming convention you're talking about is based on vacuum tubes for old video cameras, LOL. Can we get any more outdated than that? You keep asking how we can know the difference between sensor sizes if we don't use this archaic convention. How about we call them what they actually (physically) are? If the sensor is 16mm across, call it a 16mm sensor, not 1 inch.

Like MyReality says above, these companies are only sticking with this outdated convention because it sounds better, and makes it easier to trick consumers. It's not just Sony, all kinds of manufacturers pull this kind of shady marketing. Looks at TV specs, for example.

Or maybe better yet, have FF (35mm) be the reference, and name everything in relation to that. So if it's half the size of FF, call it a 1/2 sensor. If it's a quarter the size, call it a 1/4 sensor.

For my needs, all I really care about is DX and FX anyway. The IQ of anything smaller really isn't good enough for my personal tastes (maybe M43 is OK).

I just wanted to mention this whole "1-inch" thing because I bought a Canon GX7 a while back, and did think the sensor was an actual inch. A little later I learned that it was only a "1-inch type." Of course, it didn't change the way the camera functioned, but I feel like I got bamboozled.

I actually think that Sony calls it a 1" TYPE sensor rather than a 1" sensor to emphasise that it's not really 1" in size. In other words, the exact opposite of the devious marketing trick some of you think they're trying to pull off. They're basically saying that the sensor diagonal isn't really 1", but it's a sensor of the type that goes by the name 1".

And like Butoa, I'm surprised that people are so upset about this now, but not before. We've had 1/2.3", 1/1.7", 2/3", 4/3" sensors in cameras for so many years now, using the same archaic naming convention. Why does 1" suddenly cause so much confusion?

It doesn't cause confusion. It's people like xPhoenix who go to sites like Ken Rockwell read something then come back here and start repeating "oh look Sony is cheating". Note this happens every time when there is RX100 review or article. Some people will cite their Source (Rockwell) and others won't, but it's the same source.

It's really silly as 1" is the perfect word for as it describes perfectly the sensor is way bigger than other p&s that were common back then (1/2.3" 1/1.7", 2/3"), which made RX100 revolutionary invention back then in 2012 (Tim magazine)

Rockwell's site was the first that popped up. Like it or not, he knows what he's talking about and actually makes a living from photography. He's not always right, but there's some valuable info on his site.

Calling it a 1-inch sensor because it's related to the diameter of a vacuum tube from 50 years ago is what's silly. It's about 1/8 the size of a FF sensor. Call it a 1/8 sensor. It's 16mm across. Call it a 16mm sensor. That makes sense.

M4/3 doesn't have "inch" in its name. As for the iPhone 6's sensor, I believe the word is "tiny." Modern sensors like FX and DX are not named after the size of a vacuum tube from 50 years ago. They are simply Full Frame and APS-C. The term for a sensor much smaller than APS-C is "crap."

"The name of the system stems from the size of the image sensor used in the cameras, which is commonly referred to as a 4/3" type or 4/3 type sensor. The common inch-based sizing system is derived from vacuum image-sensing video camera tubes, which are now obsolete.."

Time Magazine picked Rx100 as the invention of the year for 2012 as it was a first pocket camera (fits in a pocket) with 1" sensor -- the camera that basically killed Canon S series and all enthusiast cameras with sensors of that size (like Panasonic LX series) that were 1/1.7" or 1/6" inches -- yes and even Ken Rockwell use the same words for those sensors.

Were you and Ken Rockwell sleeping for past 30 years when all p&s sensors were named like that? That same system is still in use today for phones, camcorders, bridge cameras, pocket cameras, security cameras. It's the standard.

MyReality, your brain seems thicker. The topic we were discussing was terminology 1" which is the correct use of the word as that is the standard way p&s sensors have been described (size wise) for past 30 years. Ken Rockwell is an idiot.

As for sensor size, RX100 sensor was 1" which meant it had 4 times larger surface area than Canon S series sensor size that was 1/1.7" in similar pocket size body. That's why it was the invention of the year in 2012. RX100 killed an entire line of cameras like Canon S series, Panasonic lx, and Samsung enthusiast cameras back then with 1/1.6" and 1/1.7" sensors. Fuji had some larger body cameras with 2/3" inc sensor but RX100 1" sensor was twice that seize too (surface area).

xPhoenix, GR2 is fixed lens camera with a slow F2.8 sensor. There is also Fuji APSC with faster F2.0 and RX1 with even FF sensor.

RX100 was a pocket size camera with ZOOM lens and 1" sensor (see? correct use of the word) with 4 times larger surface area than the competition. That's why it was Time magazine invention of the year back in 2012.

Way back in 2005, there was a camera like Sony R1 with large APSC sensor and zoom lens but that was a large camera. Same applies to Canon APSC one with zoom lens back 6 years ago. RX100 was competition against Canon S series in zoom and size but with a sensor that was 4 times larger.

F2.8 is slow for fixed size lens. RX100 (original), for example, is F1.8 at a wide angle, so the amount of light you get on GR2 despite larger sensor isn't that different than RX100 at 28mm equiv. So GR2 is missing the zoom, has poor video, poor AF, poor fps, and doesn't really offer better low light performance than RX100 due to the slower lens (F1.8 vs F2.8).

It's "shady marketing" only in the mind of morons who read stuff on Ken Rockwell site then come back here and start posting the BS. You aren't the first one. I have seen this happen repeatedly for several years since Ken Rockwell article.

There is no "marketing" here. 99% of people have absolutely no clue what about the actual dimension of sensors. They only know an FF sensor is way bigger than an APSC, APSC is bigger than 4/3", 1" is bigger than usual p&s cameras that were common, and iphone6 1/3"sensor is bigger than older 1/3.2" Iphone sensor.

No one actually no knows these sensors by things like 6.17mm x 4.56 mm or 4.8 mm x 3.6mm.. Are you stupid or what? Only a moron like you who reads Ken Rockwell thinks there is a huge conspiracy. There isn't.

You love Ken Rockwell. I bet you have a little Ken doll that you play with, along with your Barbies. I bet you have a tattoo of his face on your lower back. I'm going to send a "1-inch" sensor to Ken, have him autograph it and mail it to you as a keepsake, since I know you're such a huge fan.

Funny how I love Ken Rockwell when it was you who read BS on his site, posted the link here like a total moron without comprehending anything., Now you have been taught that it is indeed 1" sensor just as 1/1.7" sensor in pre-RX100 enthusiast cameras, just as 1/3" sensor in iPhone 6, just as 2/3" sensor in old Fuji cameras. Go back and suck on Ken a little more and ask him for help about what to say.

I’ve figured it out! Sony is going after the Leica pretentious camera crowd. I would’ve thought though Sony for $1200 I’d have gotten a new sensor for that money. Has the menusystem been overhauled for this camera & does it include a high res mode?

The holy grail of lying with numbers in press release: Even the DPReview is able to accept and amplify the apparent flaws in focal length/aperture.

It is EITHER some_small_numbers/2.8-4.5 (in this case 9-72/2.8-4.5, see the writing on the lens)

OR 24-200/some_high_numbers (here 24-200/7-12)

.... NEVER 24-200/2.8-4.5 - this is just a plain lie, it cannot be said otherwise. THis would be a completely different lens! (Much bigger) I know it is puzzling to have such a wildly different quivalent apertures, but this is just because ISO 100 also means wildly different things on a differently sized sensors.

I am always amazed that such a respectable site messes these specs in so many articles.

That 24-200 is not the REAL focal length in mm but just an equilvalent, is self evident. In fact the angle of view DOES match that of a 24-200 on FF.The Aperture range instead IS REAL.So these two values provide USEFUL information - supposed one has understood that a tiny sensor will never give the same IQ as a FF one. But I guess most people here already know that!

Kurt: Sorry, but not at all. The aperure is directly related to the focal length. The f/X notation is in fact exact mathematical notation meaning "focal_length divided by aperture". The result is a diametr of the "hole" inside the lens, which all the light has to pass through.

The absolute size of this hole (in milimeters, inches or whatever) is the single most important spec of the lens. The aperture number is just a ratio that has been derived from that. There are good reasons - using the aperture number, we don't need to have a calculator in our head during the shooting :)

If you recalculate the focal_length - no problem, you can do it. But then the actual hole will not match the hole resulting from the equation. You have to recalculate the aperture too.

Dude, they put 24-200mm because that's what gives people the most relatable idea of the angle of view and they put F2.8-4 because that is the calculated F-stop range of the real focal length. Stop getting your panties in a knot because they aren't being 100% technically accurate when it serves no real world purpose for them to do so.

Do you know how to make the aperture numbers even better? Make you sensor smaller. (Really!) I bet some of the manufacturers use this tactics for cameras or smartphones, because then they can say: We have that great aperture of f/1.2! (... but please don't look at the other numbers, so we can hide that we have microscopic sensor and tiny lens only working in full sunlight at best)

Blackx: Sorry the aperture values are correct. Though you are right in your definition of aperture number (focal length divided by diameter of the aperture, loosely spoken) only the REAL focal lengths go into the equation, not the equivalent ones. Aperture tells you how much light reaches the sensor relative to a given brightness of an "outside" object. So ANY lens with say 2.8 will do the same job in this regard (transmission aside, which is measured in T-stops).So this spec here is not only useful but it is also TRUE.The focal length is NOT true, as it is just an equivalent, but, as I said before, everyone is expected to know that. Still it is USEFUL for FF comparison purposes, comparing achievable angles of view.You are right that a purely technical spec phrase like "2.8-4/24-200" is WRONG by tech standards. Whereas "2.8-4/24-200 eqiv." would be OK.

Kurt: Obviously, we will not agree on this. Number like "2.8" is always relative to the focal length and that is kinda relative to the sensor size, so "2.8" can mean very different things in different contexts. The only REAL number is the diameter of the hole, which is an absolute number.

I already made an article about this issue in Czech language, but I will try to make video about it in English, so I can put a link to it next time.

Blackx EDIT: Aperture tells you how much light reaches the sensor (on/for a given area!) relative to a given brightness of an "outside" object.So greater area means a larger amount of light (photons) overall (at same fstop). This is the main advantage of a bigger sensor. But this doen´t make the specs, in what they are supposed to compare, a lie!

@Kurt: Correct would be to give either the real numbers for focal length and aperture as they are defined or the equivalent values that enable us to compare it with a full frame system in terms of field of view and depth of field. Making a mixture like „2.8-4/24-200 equiv.“ is definately wrong. As long as we know what is meant that‘s not the problem but looking at so many experts who compare different sized sensor cameras at the same f-stops and ISO values indicates to me that the message still has not been sunken in.

Blackx Quote: "so "2.8" can mean very different things in different contexts"No! 2.8 is (as you say correctly) a RELATIVE term, and as SUCH it gives a relation that is the SAME no matter sensor sizes or focal lengths!NOTE: I´m NOT saying that you get the same DOF using same fstop on different formats! This is a different question and deserves a different answer! BTW nobody ever claimed THAT!

its just the question if you are talking about „equivalent“ or „real“ values. There is simply no difference to the focal length. Equivalent values are just a convenient way to illustrate the effect on the final image if we would use a ff camera instead. We are historically used to those values and know what they mean.

rationalist: I would propose to replace focal length specs by angle of view specs- or at least add them. This might look like 2.8/80°-20°.Aperture, BECAUSE of being "just" a relation, is an absolute term--if you know what I mean. It tells you ABSOLUTELY, how much light will end at the inside per given area(!) RELATIVE to outside brightness (transmission aside).NO matter what sensor size, image circle or focal length.On the other hand, replacing focal length by angle is not useful if you´re attaching the same lens to different sensor sizes. Being an analogue Large Format user for decades, I only can tell that one can´t have it all the easy way--without at least some background knowlegde!

Blackx "I don't agree, but there is no point continuing this discussion. I will create the video one day."Do whatever you wish! Go and reinvent the wheel, if this is your goal. But please: Make it ROUND again!

rationalist: "Making a mixture like „2.8-4/24-200 equiv.“ is definately wrong."Not necessarily, as long as it is well defined how to interpret the data!In this case: the added "equiv." only applies to the focal length, but not aperture, which AS SUCH does NOT depend on equivalency relations. (DOF, etc. aside)

Blackx: You are right in saying: The bigger the hole, the more light will go thru. But the amount of light (photons) of course per given same sensor area of course decreases, the farther away that hole is away from the sensor--which depends on focal length.The diameter of the hole of course is an absolute value, and an advantage, but the diameter of the hole is NOT PRIMARILY what we want to know, if we want to know fstop specs. I hope this helped?

Kurt: I am not sure what you mean with f-stop values being absolute. Do we agree what equivalent settings on different cameras with different sensor sizes mean? I am talking about settings that lead to the same image, which means the same field of view, the same depth of field and (as a consequence) the same amount of light gathered by the sensor.

Kurt: Assuming that we agree on the definition of equivalency according to my last post, the task can be defined as finding the equivalent settings on a system with a smaller sensor starting from full frame. Shrinking the sensor by a linear factor F will obviously result in two affects: 1) the image gets cropped, the field of view gets smaller by that factor and 2) the amount of light gathered by the sensor lowers by a factor equal to the ratio of the sensor areas. To compensate for both we lower now the focal length by the factor F and put the lens closer to the sensor. This projects the same image of the ff system to the smaller sensor area. By definition we now have the equivalent setting on the smaller sensor system (same fov, same amount of light and the same dof). And what happens with the f-stop value? Since we didn‘t change the aperture diameter and f is defined as focal length divided by the diameter, it changed together with the focal length and is now lower by the factor F.

rationalist Sorry, where´s the problem? Most things you say are right.Expect: If you shrink (scale down proportionally) the whole system (including EVERY size-based item) by a linear factor F, 1.) the DOF will INCREASE. As long as you don´t shrink the outside world too by F, that is ;-) !2.) Fstop value stays constant. Since this is "only" a ratio and thus stays constant too (like the ratio of height and width of the camera will)3.) The overall amount of light (number of photons) will decrease. But the amount of light PER AREA (let´s say per square inch) will stay constant. And this is EXACTLY the information what we want and get when we look at fstop numbers (expect DOF and IQ). Think about that: If your external exposure meter tells you that 2.8, 1/125sec, ISO 100 was "best", this holds true for EVERY camera of EVERY size! No matter large format or smartphone!Do you agree, or did I fail to address parts or your statement?

rationalist I just tried to elaborate #3, but I ran out of characters allowed.So here it comes as a separate post:3.) The overall amount of light (number of photons) hitting a smaller sensor will decrease. But it does so only in absolute terms, which is irrelevant for your scaling down scenario, because on a bigger sensor this amount will (have to) be distributed over a larger area. Opposed to that the amount of light PER AREA (let´s say per square inch), which marks light DENSITY, will stay constant. And this is EXACTLY the information what we want and get when we look at fstop numbers (expect DOF and IQ). It´s all about the right EXPOSURE.Think about that: If your external exposure meter tells you that 2.8, 1/125sec, ISO 100 was "right", this holds true for EVERY camera of EVERY size! Even no matter wide-angle or super-tele. No matter large format or smartphone as well! Exposure-wise you´ll get the same results!Do you agree, or did I fail to address parts or your statement?

Kurt: Your Explanations are perfectly correct. It‘s just when I am talking about equivalency, I don‘t mean just the same exposure but all relevant parameters to the final image. Same f-stop numbers (and iso, by the way) are very handy to guarantee the same exposure on different systems but that‘s not enough when I want to produce the same image results. You stated correctly if you scale down the whole camera dof will increase. Since we can describe optics in a linear model here, the change of one parameter can be compensated by others. To come back to the original discussion with that definition of equivalency I can now answer the question what a sony rx 100 vi means in terms of the possibilities I have when I am taking images. Since I am used to ff systems and know what I can expect from f-stops and iso values there I now have a means to perfectly compare those two systems.

What Blackx wanted to say (I assume) is that by just converting the focal lengths and not the f-stops is very misleading (at least) because many people think they can get a very small camera with capabilities equal to that of a full frame system with a 24-200mm f2.8-4.5 lens. By scaling the f-stop values, which implies to scale the iso values as well to keep the exposure gives us exactly the information what we can expect from this camera in terms of the photographic possibilities if we are used to full frame.

I agree with Blackx and rationalist.I recommend watching Tony Northrups 4-part Crop Factor videos.I will link to part 4, which contains links to the first three parts in the description.Please watch it and come back here to discuss.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OtIiwbAZi8&t=322s

rationalist That´s what I said right at the beginning! Quote: "So these two values provide USEFUL information - supposed one has understood that a tiny sensor will never give the same IQ as a FF one. But I guess most people here already know that!" I forgot to add the important fact that DOF is also not the same as what you´d get from a FF lens/camera with the same aperture value. But I did address that in a later post. Blackx may also be right in that a beginner may be mislead by the mere values (including equ.) to expect ALL properties to be equal to a FF lens/camera with the same specs.So OK, case closed, I guess!

So it's more a question of how the marketing should be handled. I think that if they mention the equivalent focal range, then they should also mention the equivalent aperture range.

But I think Tonys videos, although a little old, really explains things thoroughly - and the fact that he still needs to make four videos on the subject just goes to show how hard it is for people to fully understand it.

It seems a big part of the problem is the way aperture and especially ISO is defined. It really makes it hard to compare between different sensor sizes.

Anyway, it's nice to be able to have a proper discussion about a topic in a comment section, without things getting personal - it's a rare thing these days.

Were I prone to using "emojis", there'd be lots of singing, dancing, smiley faced ones. Oh, and they'd be naked.This is absolutely the camera I need at this point ( see Panasonic - a flippy screen!).Perfect for trogging around the paddocks or settin' on the porch while the wildlife comes to me.

Handy tip - Sony refer to this as RX100M6 not RX100VI like most people. Worth knowing when searching for stuff.

The HFR specs are identical to the RX100V so (unless they accidentally forgot to update them during a cut-and-paste) I assume it's the same stacked sensor as the RX100V:Quality Priority: 240fps/250fps(1,824x1,026), 480fps/500fps(1,824x616), 960fps/1000fps(1,244x420)Shoot Time Priority: 240fps/250fps(1,824x616), 480fps/500fps(1,292x436), 960fps/1000fps(912x308)

BTW the spec says it has playmemories support, like the RX100V, so presumably apps are available (unlike some recent Sonys)?

After the rather disappointing Pana TZ200, this is much more interesting to me. I imagine there'll be a discount or cash back offer soon to make the price less shocking. The zoom range and decent apertures make it near perfect as a travel cam. The fact they’ve kept the body the same size is impressive. I can see me upgrading my Mk3. The lens better be sharp! I wonder if they’ve finally given us a histogram that stays on screen while you change exposure comp. Always bugs me.

Anticipating yet another questionable price increase I was really hoping for a wow-factor package to upgrade from my RX100 M3 (after an M1 and 2)

I mostly shot at f1.8 for higher shutter speeds with the RX100 during low light. 200mm I don't need, certainly not when it means a smaller aperture at the wide end.

During my last holiday I left my RX100 at home to try to see how I'd fare with my iPhone 8 for evening shots/video combined next to my dslr. Certainly for low light detail the iPhone can't keep up but overall experience was much better then expected. I shot a lot of video and this new RX100 can't even match the iPhone in 4K video framerate or recording duration. Not that I shoot full 5minutes clips, but no risk of having to wait for a camera to cool off. Why not fix that for €1300? And note how Sony clearly left out any mention of 4K framerate specs from the press release, a clear sign they aren't proud of that..

Zelfde hier, same here. Also had the RX100V in NY and i took the most daylight photo's with my iphone 8 plus and i was happy with the results, even did a very good panorama shot from on top of the empire state building!

Richard, that price is VAT included, i mean, its 1300 euro. BUT the same price is like peter said, 1550 USD. I dont think you americans would pay 1550 USD, even when VAT is included....That are sad european prices, and i will NOT buy it at that price, never will.

€1300 inc VAT would be €1083 ($1253) before tax, so it is a little more expensive.

However, if you look at the way prices decline over time, in Europe, it'll end up looking more competitive. Prices are maintained much more strongly in the US, such that it'll probably still cost $1200 in a year's time over here, but is very unlikely to still sell for €1300 two months after hitting the shelves.

But that's purely a comment on the way prices differ across regions, not about whether this particular model is worth that much.

Looks like a great camera but the price keeps on creeping up. I suppose they would argue that they keep previous models on sale to act as lower cost options which I suppose is admirable in a way but upping the price of the current model with each new iteration is a bit much.

My pocket camera is a Ricoh GR II. It's so sharp that it can compete with my D850 and a 28mm G. Considering that it has no zoom and is nowhere near the tech of the Sony, it's also pricey. But it's tiny and fast.That said, I can just as easily grab the small Nikon D5300, which fits in the same small bag used for any of my pocket cams, and always have more options than the Sony could deliver. I can see some situations where the Sony would be a good choice. Nikon's Coolpix 7800 had fans for that same general idea of the 200mm long end and I liked that camera...for around 550 bucks. I'm sure the Sony is far better, but I think they're going to have some issues as these prices climb.

Meh telephoto range. In good light I'm most likely to pull out a "real camera" for wide and zoomed in shots. With this camera I'll probably still resort to my iphone as it's not wide enough and not zoomy enough to bother.

Price: $1299????? Affirms that sony's solution to the smartphone is to leica up and make botique camera for rich dentists and lawyers.

While it's great that they are showing love and innovation to the high end they've completely abandoned the low end. It's been almost four years FOUR years since we've had the release of a mirrorless or RX camera under $750 (A5100 came out in sept 2014).

I'd love, and I think a lot of the forum members would agree, a RX100 version One Mark 2 with 4K video and other modern features for $500ish. I think even in the iphone age there's still room for a quality, compact, affordable-ish 1" camera.....

Never have i had to use 200mm other than sport shooting, and at that it always has been a DSLR for that purpose. If you believe a 200mm lens on a compact for $1200US is some rainbow, you're deluded....and yes, i have tried sport shooting with a compact at long FL...useless.

The compact can shoot 48 frames per second, it's still a one inch sensor for $1200. .......You bias your interpretation of evidence toward what you desire.It's a human trait when logic go out the door.

Very interesting point, I think I may well be in error, thanks. Maybe the answer is it doesn't support playmemories apps on the camera but you can use the playmemories app on a phone to do things. (Confusing much?!?) Click on the features tab and search for "memories", it's full of hits. Perhaps an important issue to clarify!

I would very much like an answer too, I've reached out to Sony but has no response. Most of the apps are useless but the timeless is what i tend to use most, would be disappointing if they have removed these features.

I kinda wish Sony would make a cheaper RX100 alternative with a zoom range of 28-85mm (or even 90 or 100mm if possible) f2=2.8. As Tamron had said with their 28-75 zooms, it's a lot easier to design a zoom lens that starts at 28mm.

I know 24-70 is the standard length, but I'd rather have a little bit more telephoto and start at 28mm instead (which is also my favourite focal length). The extra range would make a difference for street shooting or sneaking into concerts for example.

Plus if it was starting at 28mm at f2, the aperture doesn't shrink as quickly when you zoom. I have an RX100m3, and the aperture is already at f2.8 by the time you reach 35mm. In comparison, my Fuji X20 28-112 f2-2.8 only hits f2.8 at the 85mm mark.

A 28-85mm RX100 version wouldn't necessarily cannibalize existing models either, as there are plenty of other photographer who prefer starting at 24mm, which is more useful indoors.

I do have a Mark 3. It's a pretty good camera, but as a concert photographer, I bought it for when I'm not the official photographer and need to smuggle a camera into a show. At a stadium or outdoor gig, 70mm at the telephoto end isn't very much, even if you were at the front row. If it goes up to 85 or 90 mm, that would make quite some difference.

I've always felt that Sony could have easily made a 28-90 f2.0-2.8 lens if they were willing to lose 4mm at the wide end, and chances are it'd be optically better too. Not that I think the 24-70 on my Mark 3 to be bad in any way, but I do get annoyed at how it's already at f2.8 by 33mm. But for marketing reasons, they had to start the lens at 24mm f1.8, when a 28mm f2 starting point would be much easier to design.

Optical formats in inches are based on the equivalent video tube size that would historically be used.

The optical format is taking the sensor diagonal, multiply it by 1.5, express that in inches and round it to the nearest convenient fraction.

In the case of 1": a sensor sized 13.2 mm by 8.8 mm has a diagonal of 15.864 mm. Multiply that by 1.5 and you get 23.797 mm or 0.937 inches. There's not really a convienient fraction nearby 0.937, so they just round it up to 1.

You really can't compare a "launched today" product with most things, as if it isn't better it had better be cheap or they're wasting their time. This isn't cheap. Although look at the green line on the Aperture Equivalence graph.

Not at all. Depends what you're looking for. I just bought a Canon GX7ii which meets my compact travel camera needs much more so than this would. Not to mention that I could take an additional relative with me on the plane for the difference in price.

I expect the RX100VIII to be dearer than the A74 at this rate. $1200US is getting crazy in this class, this will be closer to $1800-1900 where I live. Also I think they need two lines one with a 18-72 f/2-2.8 (24mm is not wide enough) and this one.

I travel much, and I wanted something really good for video(4K). So I waited for the IV because in the V 4K seemed suck to much energy. But this zoom is not useful for me. Actually something more wide and less tele would be, but 24-72 was totally fine. Why do the called it not RX200?

Oh boy! That Sony a5100 with an E 16mm pancake lens competes pretty well in weight and APSC sensor and $350 price (body) to the RX100.6, although not pocketable. I guess I could have slacks custom-made with big enough pockets with the money that I'd save.

I think what we’re seeing in these price increases is a reversing of the trend of the 2000’s when Costco DSLRs were all the rage. Instead of selling more for less, it’s selling less for more.

In the 70’s it seemed to me that an SLR camera was a stretch and medium format was almost unattainable. There weren’t a lot of entry level SLR models and only professionals could afford the “nice ones.” And in a way, it was good for business. There was a real cost barrier to entry.

Anyhoo, I think companies like Sony are rediscovering that people are willing to stretch themselves for a camera. Of course, Leica, never forgot.

Somehow, a device as large and complicated as a DSLR became nearly as trendy and "must have" as an iPhone for a few years. People with zero interest or experience in photography were talking about them and buying them, thinking they would magically take amazing photos.

I think that market segment exploded and then disappeared overnight pretty much. Most of those people used them once or twice then put them on a shelf or on ebay because they could get the same results from their phone. They certainly won't be repeat customers.

Now the market has gone back to mainly enthusiasts buying cameras so the business model has to change accordingly.

Many of our friends headed straight to Costco when their kids signed up for soccer. It was probably fun for a while, as you say, and I wonder where those cameras are now. I only know of one who continues to be an avid enthusiast.

More about gear in this article

For the past few weeks, our readers have been voting on their favorite photographic gear released in the past year in a wide range of categories. Now that the first round of voting is over, it's time to pick the best overall product of 2018.

This year, plenty of amazing cameras, lenses, accessories and other products came through our doors. As 2018 winds down, we're highlighting some of our standout products of the year. Check out the winners of the 2018 DPReview Awards!

The Sony Cyber-shot DSC-RX100 VI earned high marks in our recent review, and we've revisited our collection of buying guides to reflect our final conclusions. Click through for links to our updated guides covering the best pocketable and long zoom compacts as well as the best choices for travel, which has a new winner (hint, hint).

There have now been seven variants of the Sony RX100 series, and at least six of them are still current models. Confused? Here's an updated look at their differences, and our recommendations among them now that we've tested the Mark VI.

With enough reach to land itself in 'travel zoom' territory, the Sony RX100 VI is well suited for a wide range of shooting situations. We've made a significant update to our initial sample gallery with plenty of samples from the past few weeks.

Many cameras today include built-in image stabilization systems, but when it comes to video that's still no substitute for a proper camera stabilization rig. The Ronin-S aims to solve that problem for DSLR and mirrorless camera users, and we think DJI has delivered on that promise.

Latest buying guides

If you're looking for a high-quality camera, you don't need to spend a ton of cash, nor do you need to buy the latest and greatest new product on the market. In our latest buying guide we've selected some cameras that while they're a bit older, still offer a lot of bang for the buck.

What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.

Professional commercial photographer Moe Lauchert shares an incredible gallery of film photographs he captured on Ilford HP5 with a Nikonos 5 while serving as a diver at NASA's Neutral Buoyancy Laboratory in Houston, Texas.

We've been shooting with a beta version of the Sony a9's upcoming firmware 5.0. While there's much more analysis to come, we can say it makes for a dead simple AF tracking user experience. Take a look at some of our samples.

The Tamron 17-35mm F2.8-4 is a compact and light-weight lens for full-frame Canon and Nikon DSLRs. We took it on grand tour of Seattle's top tourist spots and found it makes a pleasant, albeit wide, walking around lens.

Fujifilm has announced its new GF 100-200mm F5.6 R LM OIS WR tele-zoom lens. The lens, equivalent to 79-158mm when mounted on a GFX camera, has image stabilization (with a claimed 5 stops of shake reduction), a linear AF motor and weather-sealing.

Amongst all of the camera news yesterday, Sony also announced its new Imaging Edge mobile app, which replaces PlayMemories Mobile. Three desktop applications have also been updated, adding support for time-lapse movie creation.

Our intrepid team is in San Diego, for the launch of the new Sony a6400. In this short overview video, Carey, Chris and Jordan talk through the main specifications of the new camera, and what they might mean for photographers and videographers.

The Sony a6400 is the company's new midrange mirrorless camera, whose standout features include an advanced autofocus system, flip-up touchscreen LCD and oversampled 4K footage with Log support. Learn more as we go hands-on with the a6400.

Sony has announced major firmware updates for the a7R III, a7 III and a9. All three cameras gain improved Eye-AF, the ability to recognize and focus on animals' eyes, and timelapse capability. The a9 gets more sophisticated subject tracking.